• Apytele@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    171
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    16 hours ago

    Just goes to show how easy history is to alter tho. If he can do this as a one-off for shits and gigs just think what the people doing it on purpose are up to. I feel like I can hear my AP history teacher screaming “PRIMARY SOURCES” from the farthest depths of my subconscious.

      • Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 hours ago

        But if you read a primary source, that’s one persom who had the opportunity to make stuff up. With a secondary source, even if the primary it’s based on is legit, there’s some other guy who wasn’t there and may either be lying to you or misinterpreting the primary source his report is based on. Each new level of isolation adds another opportunity to stack both lies and mistakes onto the data.

        It’s not that you can’t go wrong with primary sources. It’s that you can go a lot wronger without them.